If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think you are taking the typings way to literal. I mean take flying type for example. It includes birds, as well as bats, some dragons, some bugs, among others, so we don't really need a bird type. It's just the way things are categorized with out making it to complex. I like the types how they are.

You may have misunderstood what I said. I wasn't saying there SHOULD be a "bird" type, or that "flying" was the same as a bird type. The part in brackets was because I thought after the comment before it people might say something to effect of "There is a bird type, it's just called flying" so I was just pointing out that not all flying Pokemon are birds. My point was that it doesn't make sense to have a bug type because all the other types are based off of elements, not what real-world animals the Pokemon resemble.
Also the part about Oddish looking like a radish, I was just saying it would have made more sense for them to call it Plant type than Grass type. Calling it "grass" is kind of strangely specific. Just like bugs wouldn't necessarily be their own element apart from arachnids or worms, grass would not be its own element apart from shrubs or flowers.

While some people may be against the add of new types, in a large universe of Pokemons, it would make things make more sense. The only problem on adding new types by now would be the alterations on the chart that we're used for 4 generations, and that's probably why GF didn't add any since. Adding a new type requires not only altering the chart as well as altering the type of previous Pokemons and the introducion of items as well (stat uppers, plates, gummies, gems, insenses, etc).

In my viewpoint, the most drastic thing on adding new types is about how newbie players would see the game. For old players like most of us, it would be just a short period of adaptation, but for a new player that is introduced to Pokemon in a generation where there are 30 types, it would be some trouble for him understanding them (even the 17 I haven't memorized totally, only the ones I use most). As said in the previous text, new types would also introduce new items, and because the item collection would get bigger, newbie players got more chances to give up on the game early.

Originally Posted by Zubeon

Earth (merging Rock and Ground)

Originally Posted by ThaVega

I don't know if anyone has thought about it, but I think that pokemon types could have been categorized much better. For instance, we have ground and rock type pokemon which are basically the same and maybe should have been one type.

For those that think ground and rock are pratically the same, they have some differences besides type chart. Rock Pokemons are generally made of rock (Geodude, Nosepass), got some kind of hard shell (Shuckle, Magcargo) or are from fossils (Omanyte, Kabuto, else). Ground Pokemons live in similar enviroment of rock Pokemons, but they aren't made of rock nor got any mineral armor on body (Sandshrew, Hippopotas, Gligar, for example). Can you imagine Sandshrew being purely rock type? Can you imagine Geodude being purely ground type? I think it's quite hard to imagine that.

While some people may be against the add of new types, in a large universe of Pokemons, it would make things make more sense. The only problem on adding new types by now would be the alterations on the chart that we're used for 4 generations, and that's probably why GF didn't add any since. Adding a new type requires not only altering the chart as well as altering the type of previous Pokemons and the introducion of items as well (stat uppers, plates, gummies, gems, insenses, etc).

In my viewpoint, the most drastic thing on adding new types is about how newbie players would see the game. For old players like most of us, it would be just a short period of adaptation, but for a new player that is introduced to Pokemon in a generation where there are 30 types, it would be some trouble for him understanding them (even the 17 I haven't memorized totally, only the ones I use most). As said in the previous text, new types would also introduce new items, and because the item collection would get bigger, newbie players got more chances to give up on the game early.

For those that think ground and rock are pratically the same, they have some differences besides type chart. Rock Pokemons are generally made of rock (Geodude, Nosepass), got some kind of hard shell (Shuckle, Magcargo) or are from fossils (Omanyte, Kabuto, else). Ground Pokemons live in similar enviroment of rock Pokemons, but they aren't made of rock nor got any mineral armor on body (Sandshrew, Hippopotas, Gligar, for example). Can you imagine Sandshrew being purely rock type? Can you imagine Geodude being purely ground type? I think it's quite hard to imagine that.

I don't think Rock and Ground are the same. I just think they have enough in common to have potentially been one type, in the broader conception of 'earth' as an element.

You may have misunderstood what I said. I wasn't saying there SHOULD be a "bird" type, or that "flying" was the same as a bird type. The part in brackets was because I thought after the comment before it people might say something to effect of "There is a bird type, it's just called flying" so I was just pointing out that not all flying Pokemon are birds. My point was that it doesn't make sense to have a bug type because all the other types are based off of elements, not what real-world animals the Pokemon resemble.
Also the part about Oddish looking like a radish, I was just saying it would have made more sense for them to call it Plant type than Grass type. Calling it "grass" is kind of strangely specific. Just like bugs wouldn't necessarily be their own element apart from arachnids or worms, grass would not be its own element apart from shrubs or flowers.

For those that think ground and rock are pratically the same, they have some differences besides type chart. Rock Pokemons are generally made of rock (Geodude, Nosepass), got some kind of hard shell (Shuckle, Magcargo) or are from fossils (Omanyte, Kabuto, else). Ground Pokemons live in similar enviroment of rock Pokemons, but they aren't made of rock nor got any mineral armor on body (Sandshrew, Hippopotas, Gligar, for example). Can you imagine Sandshrew being purely rock type? Can you imagine Geodude being purely ground type? I think it's quite hard to imagine that.

I get that, but I don't think an entire type split is necessary.

If you look at other types there are similar splits. There are ice types that are made of ice (Glalie, Cryogonal) and then ice types that are just Pokemon that inhabit icy areas (Mamoswine, Walrein). By the rock/ground example, we could split them along these lines into two types.

But I think the simpler solution is just having one type with different kinds of Pokemon in it. If Cryogonal and Mamoswine can be in the same category, so can Geodude and Sandshrew.

Well in terms of the actual types themselves, yeah, some are sketchy, and if they'd made the typings different, we'd all take that as face value instead. We'd accept whatever typings they came up with. But regardless of what the types actually are, it's the fact that they're arranged into what is largely a succesful balance of strength and weaknesses that makes us so accepting of them.

Having said that, Bug, Dragon, and maybe Ghost, are weird in that they aren't really an element or main attribute so to speak, but refer to what sort of animal they actually are, which is a bit strange. Not saying 'omg they shuldnt exist', it's just a bit odd. But obviously I'm perfectly fine with it.

In terms of new types, we can all throw around potential ideas, but the one type that I think could and perhaps should exist is something like the 'Synthetic' or 'Abnormal' type, for things like Ditto and Porygon, because how exactly are DNA transforming creatures and a synthetic Pokemon that can travel through cyberspace 'Normal' in any way?

I wouldn't change or merge any of the existing types in the game. The Base Stat changes from Gen II to Gen III caused enough problems already. God knows how much chaos would come from modifying or merging existing types. I would rather change the type table if it was to add in new types.

Originally Posted by NightmareHybrid

I'm perfectly fine with the types we have already, and I don't think they need to add any on. Especially a Light type, I swear I will hurt someone if they make a Light type. WE DON'T NEED A LIGHT TYPE. WE HAVE PSYCHIC TYPE FOR THAT.

Explain how Dark is immune to Psychic if it is supposed to represent Light.
Dark and Light are complete opposites and Light being the last major element to have been not covered properly and is spread across a wide range of often unrelated types (the closest we get are Flash Cannon and Mirror Shot from the Steel type, Morning Sun and Flash from the Normal type, Synthesis from the Grass type, Aurora Beam from the Ice type, Signal Beam from the Bug type and Psybeam from the Psychic type). The amount of differences it has from existing types (and being scattered among them) and it being largely untouched I think is enough for it to warrant a new type.
If GameFreak were to make Light a real type and they modify existing pokemon and moves to accommodate the new type, I would hope that any pokemon being imported from the previous generation games retain their old types (this applies to any learned moves) and only change into their new Light types through some sort of mysterious event as to make the shift optional. Cressilia is an obvious example of a pokemon getting changed to the Light type while the Muskdeers and Lucario are also candidates for a change to the Light type.

I look all at the types as distinct, so no, I don't find any unnecessary. Well, actually, I guess I've questioned the uniqueness of the Normal type, although I still found it unique. For example, pokemon like Pidgeot and Fearow could just be flying types, while pokemon like Chansey and Audino could be classified as light (meaning a pokemon that was particularly nice or benevolent), assuming it was introduced. However, a pokemon like Raticate doesn't really fit into any of the other types (unless it could be interpreted as dark), so Normal type would still be required.

As for the similarily between ice & water and rock & ground, I'd say this:

Ice & Water: consider Cryogonal and Goldeen. One is an ice type that has nothing to do with water, while Goldeen has nothing to do with ice.

Rock & Ground: similar to the last argument, consider Donphan and Solrock

I'm looking for a Serperior named Serpedera. It'll be at lvl 98 or above. If you happen to have such a pokemon please PM me.

If you look at other types there are similar splits. There are ice types that are made of ice (Glalie, Cryogonal) and then ice types that are just Pokemon that inhabit icy areas (Mamoswine, Walrein). By the rock/ground example, we could split them along these lines into two types.

But I think the simpler solution is just having one type with different kinds of Pokemon in it. If Cryogonal and Mamoswine can be in the same category, so can Geodude and Sandshrew.

About Glalie and Cryogonal we could fix that if the "crystal" type were created, then they would be crystal/ice or purely crystal type. Just a split suggestion to split ice into ice and crystal.

Originally Posted by NightmareHybrid

Especially a Light type, I swear I will hurt someone if they make a Light type. WE DON'T NEED A LIGHT TYPE. WE HAVE PSYCHIC TYPE FOR THAT.

You probably didn't understand the purpose of a light type nor know how to describe a psychic type to say that psychic and light are the same type. Technically, they are not.

Psychic Pokemons have powers from their mind. They overused their brain along the years and on that way they didn't need to focus on body anymore. That is probably why most of the psychic Pokemons have low defenses and Attack (most of them, not all). Psychic Pokemon's moves are associated with the use of the mind, not with magic. They're not magical.

Light type is so the opposite of dark. Light vanish darkness, and vice versa. Light type would be associated with goodness, purity, magic, mystic, etc. They're not light because they're intelligent, they're light because they spread good feelings, basically. Cresselia, currently psychic type, would be a light type as she is said to vanish darkness caused by Darkrai (which is a dark type).

Many Pokemons that are associated with magic, purity, goodness, light, were given the psychic as type in spite of many of them don't use the mind to generate their powers. But as there isn't a light type, they were given the closest type to it. I have always thought on light type since Gen II, as a counterpart for dark.

Despite dark being "evil" in Japan, it is worldwide known as dark. As most of the people knows English instead Japanese, then "dark" becomes the most-used term to describe those Pokemons.

Plus, the opposite of evil would be holy or saint, and Justice isn't indeed represented by any specific type (much less a double type).

The creators are Japanese and likely don't care about what it's known as in English. It more means Evil in that the moves that they use involve dirty tricks or causing pain (Nasty Plot, Beat Up, Bite, Foul Play and the Pokemon Zoroark) and is meant to be opposed to Fighting Type which is representing the more honourable (this is Japan remember) martial arts (Karate Chop, Sky Uppercut, Circle Throw and Pokemon like Sawk and Throh).

Let's just cut it to four classic alchemical elements [fire,earth,air,water+add some 5th element like Chaos/Magic/Spirit] and call that a day XD *I've got my own mons that work like that, but even then, elements are split depending on speciality and moveset*

Eh. I kind of do dislike that rock/ground are two separate types. Yes one is useless against flying and one is super effective (and I think ice is good against rock and weak to ground or vise versa) but I think for them to have made that distinction in the first place is silly.

Also why is there a bug type. (This has probably been addressed by someone already but I don't have time to read the whole topic at present). There's no bird type (no, NOT flying because no all flying Pokemon are birds) there's no mammal type, no fish type. There is a grass type though, but I think that makes much more sense (I have my reasons, I just can't really explain it). Though I think it should have been called "plant" not grass. The only one I can think of that resembles actual grass is Oddish's leaves. But obviously Oddish itself is more like a radish or something. But I digress.

Edit: Oh, and dragon types too. Yeah, they're wicked but.. half them aren't even dragons. So it's not a literal type. And from an elemental perspective I just have no idea what it's supposed to be at all.

Because otherwise the game wouldn't work. Using what you suggested, Bugs would become Normal, Ground/Earth, or even Grass! And having a Bug type makes the game more realistic and therefore simpler: bugs have thin exoskeletons, and therefore are weak to Rock Throws. They're attracted to bright lights, so they're weak to flamefire. They're eaten by birdsFlyings. Otherwise, we'd have superstrong bugs.

And about the names: it's what comes off the tongue (in English) the easiest.

Originally Posted by BlitzBlast

YOUR DOG IS NOT A POKEMON.

Originally Posted by Flurried Rains

Female Alakazam. Oh hot damn I love a girl with a mustache.

Originally Posted by Azereus

You don't think a muscular female body builder without a shirt isn't disturbing? I guess we're all different when it comes to social norms...